coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1965 and lives in Muş.
7.  On 11 May 1994 the applicant was arrested and placed in custody by officers from the anti-terrorism branch of the Istanbul Security Directorate on suspicion of his membership of an illegal organisation, namely the PKK (the Kurdistan Workers’ Party).
8.  On 19 May 1994 he was brought before the public prosecutor and then the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court. The same day, the investigating judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand.
9.  In an indictment dated 1 June 1994, the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and eleven others for being members of the PKK. The prosecutor requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Section 5 of Law No. 3713 (the Anti-Terrorism Law).
10.  On 29 May 1997 the applicant was convicted as charged by the Istanbul State Security Court and sentenced to twelve years and six months’ imprisonment.
11.  On 14 December 1998 the Court of Cassation quashed the applicant’s conviction on the ground that the State Security Court had delivered its judgment without obtaining a final statement from the applicant, and thus had restricted the applicant’s defence rights. The case was remitted to the Istanbul State Security Court for a further examination and the applicant remained in custody.
12.  On 16 March 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court held its first hearing.
13.  In the course of the criminal proceedings the applicant made numerous submissions for his release pending trial. He claimed that he was innocent and had been held in detention on remand for an excessive period, contrary to international norms. The court dismissed his request for release at each of the nine hearings held between 11 August 1994 and 28 November 1995 without indicating any reason. At each of the thirty-five hearings held between 1 February 1996 and 17 April 2001, it dismissed the request due to “the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”.
14.  In the meantime, the applicant’s lawyer challenged his client’s continued detention before another court. In his petition of 7 November 2000, he stated that his client had been detained for six years and six months, despite the absence of any danger that he would destroy the evidence, which had all been submitted to the case file, or that he would abscond. The court dismissed the request on similar grounds (paragraph 13 in fine above), namely “having regard to the nature of the offence, the state of the evidence and the content of the case file”.
15.  The Istanbul State Security Court held twenty-eight more hearings before delivering its final judgment. At fifteen of them, where the court merely reviewed the applicant’s continued detention, the applicant was not present. For the others, the court fixed them at approximately two month intervals.
16.  On 12 April 2001 the State Security Court adhered to its first judgment and convicted the applicant of the offence.
17.  On 8 October 2001 the Court of Cassation upheld this judgment.
4.  The applicant is an organisational unit of the Roman Catholic Church with its head office in Prague.
5.  On 27 April 2000 (according to the applicant) or 2 May 2000 (according to the Government), the applicant lodged an action with the Mělník District Court (okresní soud) against Mr H., seeking to establish its ownership of plots of land with a church and belfry in Obříství.
6.  On 11 October 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request of 23 August 2000 for an interim measure to secure the applicant’s access to and use of the property in question. This decision was delivered to the applicant’s lawyer and the defendant on 16 and 26 October 2000 respectively. On the same date, the defendant received a copy of the applicant’s action.
7.  On 6 November 2000 the applicant’s appeal of 23 October 2000 against the decision on interim measures was delivered to the defendant, who sent his observations on 22 November 2000.
8.  On 5 December 2000 the case-file was submitted to the Prague Regional Court (krajský soud), which on 12 December 2000 quashed the lower court’s decision and remitted the case to it for further consideration. It ordered the District Court to hear the parties to the proceedings before deciding on the request.
9.  In January 2001 the Regional Court’s decision was received by the parties to the proceedings.
10.  On 8 March 2001 the District Court fixed a hearing for 23 April 2001, at which it granted the requested interim measure.
11.  Upon the defendant’s appeal of 15 May 2001, received by the applicant’s lawyer on 21 May 2001 and after the submission of the case-file to the Regional Court on 5 June 2001, the latter upheld the District Court’s decision on 14 June 2001. This decision entered into force on 31 July 2001.
12.  On 12 March 2003 the District Court held a hearing, at which it dismissed the applicant’s action.
13.  On 27 June 2003 the Regional Court, upon the applicant’s appeal of 2 April 2003, supplemented on 10 April 2003, quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case to it for further consideration.
14.  On 21 January 2005 the applicant’s received the District Court’s decision of 6 January 2005 appointing an expert in the field of church law.
15.  It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Rab.
5.  On 10 June 1996 a company J. (“the company”) instituted civil proceedings against the applicant in the Rijeka Commercial Court (Trgovački sud u Rijeci) seeking restitution of business premises in the applicant's possession and payment of rent.
6.  On 7 August 1996 the applicant filed a counterclaim against the company seeking payment of a certain amount of money on the basis of his investments in the business premises.
7.  The two cases were joined.
8.  On 2 October 1996 the Rijeka Commercial Court decided in the company's favour. At the same time it dismissed the applicant's claim as inadmissible because the company had meanwhile gone bankrupt and the applicant failed to report his claim in bankruptcy.
9.  The applicant appealed against that decision. On 11 February 1997 the High Commercial Court (Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske) upheld the first instance judgment.
10.  On 27 March 1997 the applicant filed a request for revision on points of law (revizija) with the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).
11.  On 11 December 2001 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's request on its merits. That decision was not served on the applicant until 6 May 2002.
12.  Meanwhile, on 22 March 2002 a new section 59 (a), which subsequently became section 63 of the Constitutional Court Act entered into force, introducing a domestic remedy for length of proceedings in form of a constitutional complaint.
13.  In line with the new legislation, on 11 April 2002 the applicant filed a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the proceedings.
14.  On 2 October 2002 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint because the Supreme Court had meanwhile decided his case.
5.  The applicant was born in 1921 and lives in Novska, Croatia.
6.  During the Homeland War, members of the Croatian Army had seized the applicant's vehicle.
7.  On 24 January 1994 the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu) seeking compensation for his vehicle from the State.
8.  On 3 June 1997 the court gave partial judgment awarding the applicant compensation.
9.  Both the applicant and the State appealed. On 25 August 1998 the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) quashed the judgment and remitted the case.
10.  On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced amendments to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1999 Amendments”). The amended legislation provided that all actions for damages against the State for the acts of members of the Croatian Army and the police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.
11.  On 17 December 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court stayed the proceedings pursuant to the above legislation. On 12 December 2000 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant's appeal against that decision.
12.  On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation on the liability of the State for damage caused by members of the Croatian Army and police in the performance of their official duties during the Homeland War (“the 2003 Liability Act”).
13.  On 11 November 2003 the applicant's proceedings resumed pursuant to the above legislation. The proceedings are still pending.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 14 April 1992 the applicant's house in Vinkovci, Croatia was blown up by unknown perpetrators.
6.  On 12 July 1993 the applicant, together with her husband, filed a civil action with the Vinkovci Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Vinkovcima) against the State seeking damages in the amount of 847,671 Croatian kunas (HRK) for her destroyed property. She relied on section 180 of the Civil Obligations Act.
7.  The court held hearings on 15 December 1993, 5 January and 22 March 1994 and 6 February 1996.
8.  On 3 February 1996 the Amendment to the Civil Obligations Act (“the 1996 Amendment”) entered into force. It provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending enactment of new legislation on the subject.
9.  On 25 July 1996 the applicant's husband applied to the administrative authorities for reconstruction assistance in order to obtain financial means to reconstruct their destroyed house. On 9 August 1996 the competent administrative authority granted his request. The reconstruction was completed on 26 May 1997. The total amount the State spent on the reconstruction of the house amounted to HRK 234,040.
10.  On 27 March 2002 the Vinkovci Municipal Court stayed the above mentioned civil proceedings pursuant to the 1996 Amendment.
11.  On 31 July 2003 the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations (“the 2003 Liability Act”) entered into force.
12.  Pursuant to the 2003 Liability Act, on 14 January 2004 the Municipal Court resumed the proceedings and, on 19 February 2004, dismissed the applicant's action finding that it no longer had jurisdiction in the matter. It appears that the applicant did not appeal against that decision.
4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Bludenz.
5.  In May 2000 the Feldkirch Regional Court (Landesgericht) opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code.
6.  On 23 November 2000 the Regional Court, after having held a trial, convicted the applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to six months' imprisonment suspended on probation. It found that, in 1997, he had performed homosexual acts with two adolescents.
7.  Upon the applicant's appeal, the Innsbruck Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) requested the Constitutional Court (Verfassungs-gerichtshof) to review the constitutionality of Article 209.
8.  On 29 November 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed this request (see paragraph 22 below).
9.  On 20 December 2001 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal filed a new request for review of the constitutionality of Article 209.
10.  On 21 June 2002 the Constitutional Court gave a judgment holding that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional (see paragraph 23 below).
11.  The amendment repealing Article 209 entered into force on 14 August 2002. While, according to the transitional provisions, Article 209 remained applicable in all cases in which the judgment at first instance had already been given before the entry into force of the amendment, it could no longer be applied in the applicant's case since it had been the case in point (Anlaßfall) before the Constitutional Court.
12.  On 17 July 2002 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal, noting that the Constitutional Court had repealed Article 209 as unconstitutional, acquitted the applicant. This decision was served on him on 12 August 2002.
13.  On 20 September 2002 the Feldkirch Regional Court dismissed the applicant's request for reimbursement of his defence costs holding that under Article 393a (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozeßordnung) no right to compensation existed if the accused was not punishable on grounds which occurred after the indictment was filed.
14.  On 12 November 2002 the Innsbruck Court of Appeal partly granted the applicant's appeal, awarding him reimbursement of a total amount of 1,839.38 euros (EUR) for costs and expenses. It found that the Regional Court had wrongly applied Article 393a (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant's case had been the case in point before the Constitutional Court leading to the repeal of Article 209 of the Criminal Code. His case had to be treated as if Article 209 had never existed. Consequently, it could not be said that he was acquitted on grounds which occurred after the indictment.
15.  The court found that the applicant's defence costs including the costs relating to the proceedings before the Constitutional Court, in which the applicant, as an interested party (mitbeteiligte Partei), had made detailed submissions, had been necessarily incurred. However, the law provided that only a maximum amount of EUR 1,091 was to be reimbursed as contribution to the defence costs. In addition EUR 748,38 were awarded for cash expenses.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Pusté Uľany.
5.  In 1991 the applicant sustained an injury at work as a result of which she has been handicapped.
6.  On 8 January 1992 she sought compensation from her former employer before the Galanta District Court. The applicant also submitted an expert opinion.
7.  In the course of 1992 and 1993 the District Court held 12 hearings.
8.  On 8 April 1994 the District Court decided to obtain a second expert opinion. The defendant challenged the decision ordering him to pay an advance on expert’s fees. On 31 August 1994 the appellate court determined that issue.
9.  On 22 September 1994 the District Court decided to obtain an opinion from a different expert. On 1 December 1994 and on 9 March 1995 the court urged the expert to submit the opinion.
10.  On 11 July 1995 the case was assigned to a different judge.
11.  Between 28 November 1995 and 12 October 1999 the District Court requested the expert five times to submit the opinion or to return the file to it. The letter of 12 October 1999 was returned to the court with a remark indicating that the addressee had died. It was later established that the expert had died in December 1995.
12.  Between 26 October 1999 and 3 May 2000 the District Court unsuccessfully attempted to locate and obtain the case file which had been sent to the expert. On 16 June 2000 it requested the parties to submit all relevant documents to it as the file had been lost with the expert. The court reiterated its request on 10 August 2000 and, as regards the applicant, also on 7 September 2000.
13.  In the meantime, on 31 March 1999, bankruptcy proceedings were brought against the defendant.
14.  On 17 August 2000 the administrator in bankruptcy informed the District Court that he did not possess the documents which the court had requested. The administrator asked the District Court to stay the proceedings due to the defendant’s bankruptcy.
15.  On 20 September 2000 the applicant informed the District Court that she possessed no further documents relating to the case.
16.  On 22 March 2001 the Galanta District Court stayed the proceedings concerning the applicant’s claim pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings against the defendant company.
17.  On 8 September 2003 and on 5 December 2003 the District Court requested the Bratislava Regional Court to submit to it the latter’s decision of 9 July 2003 under which the bankruptcy proceedings had been discontinued. In the meantime, on 27 October 2003, the defendant company had been deleted from the companies register whereby it had ceased to exist.
18.  On 29 December 2003 the Galanta District Court received the above Bratislava Regional Court’s decision of 9 July 2003. On 19 January 2004 the District Court discontinued the proceedings in the applicant’s action of 8 January 1992 on the ground that the defendant had ceased to exist without any legal successor. The decision became final on 7 February 2004.
4.  On 19 July 1993 the applicants brought separate actions before the Baskil Civil Court of First Instance against the National Water Board. They alleged that their plots of land had been illegally seized by the administration for dam construction without any payment being made and requested compensation in this respect.
5.  On 2 December 1993 the Baskil Civil Court of First Instance held that the cases should be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation rather than compensation claims arising from the illegal seizure of the applicants’ land since a committee of experts had assessed the value of the land and this amount had been paid by the authorities to those who were indicated as the owners of the land in the Land Registry. The court ordered the administration to pay the applicants an amount of increased compensation, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 1986, when the plots of lands were submerged in the waters of the dam.
6.  On 6 October 1994 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgments of the first-instance court and held that the cases could not be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. The applicants requested rectification of the decisions of the Court of Cassation.
7.  On 7 March 1995 the Court of Cassation rectified its decisions, holding that the cases could be characterised as compensation claims arising from expropriation. It quashed the judgments of the first-instance court only in respect of the date from which the statutory rate of interest began to run from.
8.  On 9 October 1997 the first-instance court abided by the ruling of the Court of Cassation. It accordingly ordered the administration to pay Ali Aslangiray, Fatma Özbilge and Gülsüm Özbilge 303,510,000 Turkish liras (TRL) (approximately 1,540 euros (EUR)), TRL 216,503,800 (approximately EUR 1,100) and TRL 424,914,000 (approximately EUR 2,155) respectively, plus interest at the statutory rate, running from 19 August 1993, the date on which the ownership of the property was transferred to the National Water Board. The National Water Board appealed.
9.  On 17 March 1998 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgments of the Baskil Civil Court of First Instance.
10.  On 2 April 1998 the decisions of the Court of Cassation were served on the applicants.
11.  On 11 November 1998 the administration paid the applicants the amounts due together with interest.
8.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Moscow.
9.  In 1997 the applicant became pregnant.
10.  In the night of 1 August 1997, in the thirty-fifth week of pregnancy, the embryo asphyxiated in the womb. On 4 August 1997 the applicant gave birth to a stillborn baby boy and decided to bury him.
11.  On 13 August 1997 the stillbirth was registered by the Chertanovskiy branch of the Civil Acts Registration Service (Чертановский отдел ЗАГС). Mr Z., who had been the applicant's husband until their divorce on 25 March 1997, was entered as the stillbirth's father in the birth certificate (акт о рождении) and in the birth register (книга записей рождений).
12.  The applicant submitted that the biological father of the stillbirth had been Mr G., with whom she had been living as man and wife since 1994. Mr G. had expected the child and talked about their future son as his own. They could not, however, file a joint declaration establishing the child's paternity because Mr G. had been placed in a detention facility on 20 June 1997. It appears that the applicant had no access to her partner after that date. On 12 October 1997 Mr G. died in custody.
13.  The applicant refused to put her former husband's surname on the stillborn child's tombstone and left it empty.
14.  On 10 August 2000 the applicant requested the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow to establish Mr G.'s paternity in respect of the stillbirth and amend the child's surname and patronymic name accordingly. In Russian, patronymic names are normally formed from the father's forename and a special ending, -ovich for sons or -ovna for daughters. The applicant relied on Article 49 of the Family Code.
15.  On 21 November 2000 the applicant's former husband died.
16.  On 16 March 2001 the Chertanovskiy District Court of Moscow gave its decision. It held that the stillborn child had not acquired civil rights, whereas Article 49 of the Family Code only applied to living children. It ordered the discontinuation of the proceedings because “[the applicant's claim] was not fit for examination and determination in the framework of civil proceedings”.
17.  On 18 May 2001 the Moscow City Court, on an appeal by the applicant, upheld the decision of 16 March 2001. The court repeated that “the case could not be examined as a civil action because the child had not acquired civil rights”.
4.  On 1 September 2001 the Innsbruck Regional Court (Landesgericht) ordered the first applicant's detention on remand on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to Article 209 of the Criminal Code.
5.  On 3 December 2001 the Innsbruck Regional Court convicted the first applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to eighteen months' imprisonment. It found that, from July 2001 until his arrest, the first applicant had had sexual relations with three different male minors born in 1986 and 1987 respectively. In determining the sentence the court had regard to the first applicant's confession as a mitigating circumstance and to his previous convictions as aggravating circumstance.
6.  On 6 December 2001 the first applicant started to serve his sentence of imprisonment at Garsten prison. On 1 September 2002 the first applicant was granted early release from detention.
7.  On 25 September 2000 the Wels Regional Court convicted the second applicant under Article 209 of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to three months' imprisonment, suspended for a probation period of three years. It found that on 3 June 1998 the second applicant had had a sexual encounter with a male minor born in 1981. Referring to Article 41 § 1 of the Criminal Code the court found that the conditions for an extraordinary mitigation of sentence (ausserordentliche Strafmilderung) were met, i.e. a sentence below the statutory level of punishment could be pronounced. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, in particular that the offence had merely been attempted, the court found that a suspended term of imprisonment was commensurate to the second applicant's guilt.
8.  On 14 December 2000 the second applicant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that Article 209 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional in that it did not comply with Article 8 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 14.
9.  On 20 February 2001 the Linz Court of Appeal dismissed the second applicant's appeal. The Court stated that it had no doubts about the constitutionality of Article 209 of the Criminal Code and referred in this respect to the Constitutional Court's case-law.